Are you saying that it's a useful phone for developers or that there's a lot of opportunity because basically there's no mobile-first Linux software out there?
Did they? I googled "buy magic leap" and all I can find are dev units ("Creator Edition"). That's not a consumer product. That's a pre-requisite for a consumer product. Magic Leap have never released a product for general sale.
Weird. The developer version is $500 more than the "personal version", but seems to include only the "Developer Hub" (apparently: "[...] a split cable that connects the computer to the power source to enable uninterrupted development time while charging") and support. Is there any other distinction?
The Developer Plus version is $500 over the Developer version, and the only difference is an extra year of priority service. It doesn't look like there any differences other than what you pointed out.
I agree with you ! I know the words for many years (Magic Leap) but I can never remember their product or promise they offer, I spent a fair amount of time on line and reading the news. I've also "missed" their product offering.
The goal is to force every other company to do it as well, protecting the long-term prospects of Uber. A smart thing, and possibly a good one in the short term.
That would basically be suicide bombing the "ride share" industry though. Everyone is losing money hand over fist. Increasing that amount will kill everyone just as dead but do it faster decreasing the amount of time that Uber, or anybody, would be able to figure out how to be profitable. I can see how faced with a binary choice between $21/hr and classifying as employees $21/hr is better but it's not a binary choice. They can pay off politicians (indirectly and with plausible deniability of course) or do other dirty things (this is Uber we're talking about here) to get the law changed.
Ride share, by the strict definition, is just the point of entry. Uber's goal is to become transportation infrastructure, in a 'privatize the gains, socialize the losses' kind of way, as with the rail barons and the car companies and the commercial airlines.
Why do you think they’ll manage to socialize the losses?
So far the losses have been very privatized (VC and bank money) and if anything the gains have been socialized (the general public has benefited a lot in the form of taxi-like transportation, airport rides, etc. getting phenomenally better in most cities where Uber exists).
There have also been public losses. Transit ridership tends to decrease with increased ridesharing. This means more cars on the roads, less money for public transit, and more pollution.
Who says they'll bear the cost? I'm not sure forcing all of these services to jack up their prices is bad for Uber if they can increase their overall margin while doing so. They just can't do it today if the competition won't follow suit.
Yes, they lose some volume but Uber/Lyft is probably a pretty strongly engrained habit for many at this point.
The price would get so high that demand would plummet -- more shared/saver rides or public transit or own drive or flexcar/cargo carshare outside of the densest Urban cores.
I'm not sure about "plummet" at least until you get materially more expensive than taxis. But you're right that decreases in demand mean not only fewer fares but also a less viable service at the margins.
When I've looked, it's appeared as if Uber is only marginally viable around where my house is. Decrease the number of riders and I could imagine the number of drivers dropping further to the point where it's not really a usable service.
Really? "the valley"? I think you'd be closer to the mark if you said it's true in most major metro areas. That still leaves many other markets, but the ubiquity Uber/Lyft is hardly a Silicon Valley only phenomenon.
Ubiquity of Uber/Lyft is a phenomenon across the world, but not all the markets are as flexible on the price. I question the premise that the markets will respond mildly to a significant price increase in most places. The valley just has a high density of high earners who are willing to pay the sort of price Uber would have to set for competing successfully with drivers making decent pay.
And has done so by running its business at a loss, with waves of protests erupting across the world against their anti-labor policies. A quick google search will tell you all about it.
Do you believe that when Uber stops bleeding money, and pays an ultimately somewhat acceptable wage to its drives, it will still be able to compete at the new prices set by these changes?
> Might be true in the valley, but I see no reason to believe that this is true in many other markets.
I responded to this statement, in which you implied that uber had little market share in other areas. No where in your comment did you state that it was operating at a loss, you simply stated you didn't believe Uber wasn't as strong in other markets.
From the comment above, to which I was responding:
> pretty strongly engrained habit
An ingrained habit and market share are different things. Market share is dependent on price point among many other conditions. I never said or implied that ride share services, and Uber in particular, don't have strong market share. They do at the moment.
Its disingenuous to call it commercially-friendly. The vast majority of commercial users don't want to be subject to the terms of sharing their own code or modified versions of the GPL'd code, regardless of how 'fair' one thinks such an agreement is. Permissively licensed code allows commercial usage without the restrictions that commercial users actively avoid.
Please don't make these dismissals, there are many companies that make tons of money off of GPL software. The GPL purposefully disallows anyone adding restrictions to the code that would cripple commercial use. It's fine if your company doesn't want to comply with its terms, you don't have to use that software. But just remember that the GPL is not meant to pander to companies that intend to take the code, lock it up in a proprietary product and never give anything back to the community.
The GPL's very nature cripples commercial use because a very large number of companies rely on being able to control distribution, or need to participate in markets where distribution requirements cannot be met if the GPL is used. Good luck navigating the specifics of deploying GPL tainted software on a closed down app store or a console for example. Companies don't have any obligation to 'give back to the community', and I'm not arguing on whether anyone thinks that is fair. The GPL is commercially-friendly in a very very narrow set of examples. Imo, to call it 'commercial friendly' in a general sense especially within the context of other FOSS licenses is insincere.
The distribution controls and market requirements are unfortunate, but if they are being imposed on you by a platform owner then it's that vendor's fault. Those app store agreements are absolutely loaded with commercial restrictions. Please don't pin the blame for this on copyleft licensing, when those vendors have explicitly decided they were against it long ago and would do everything they could to stop it including banning it from their platforms in an effort to destroy the commercial viability of what they view as competition.
The person is biased and dismissing is a good option.